EU, Immigration and UKIP

[EM2]

...this does not mean they are the evil, corrupt caricatures we see portrayed.

If they aren't, why are they intent on the bulk of their austerity measures hitting the poorest, the weakest, those least able to cope? Why did they bring in a policy of penalising those with a spare room in their house, when they know that there aren't enough smaller properties for these people to move to?

Why are they not, for example, tackling tax avoidance by big companies? Why are they allowing their own MP, Richard Benyon, to buy homes from a charitable trust and quadruple the rents?

 

[21C101]

If they aren't, why are they intent on the bulk of their austerity measures hitting the poorest, the weakest, those least able to cope? Why did they bring in a policy of penalising those with a spare room in their house, when they know that there aren't enough smaller properties for these people to move to?

Why are they not, for example, tackling tax avoidance by big companies? Why are they allowing their own MP, Richard Benyon, to buy homes from a charitable trust and quadruple the rents?

Because there are not many rich people and tax avoiding companies so a lump of money from each of them would raise far less than a smaller amount from millions. And the rich and big companies can afford clever lawyers to wriggle out of it. In the 50s a now dead collegue was pulled over for speeding on Hammersmith Flyover, shortly after being overtaken at high speed by a powerful sports car. He asked the police why they didn't go for his serious offending. They replied we can't catch him but we could catch you sir. Same applies with government and tax collecting.

Re the spare room. Exceptions such as serious disabilities eg where the spouse has to sleep in a separate room, exactly why should someone expect to have a spare room at the states expense. The only thing that really annoys me about that policy is that it does not apply to the biggest group of house blockers, the over 65s.

Agree with you about the selling off of council houses and subsequent renting privately though.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Well these were largely abolished by a Labour Administration - your hated aristocracy and gentry were I'm sure in favour of them

No they were not. Labour started it but the Heath government (education secretary Margaret Thatcher) implemented it.

First thing the first generation of ex Grammar school kids to take over the Tory party did was abolish them handing the party back to the public schoolboys within a generation....

 

[EM2]

The amount of tax avoided by Vodafone alone would have covered almost all of the cuts in welfare.

 

[Oswyntail]

The amount of tax avoided by Vodafone alone would have covered almost all of the cuts in welfare.

Sadly, avoided quite legally and within the rules. Which are being changed, but it takes time.

 

[EM2]

Sadly, avoided quite legally and within the rules. Which are being changed, but it takes time.

No, avoided after negotiating with HMRC:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/27/vodafone-and-tax-protests/

One of Vodafone’s stores in Central London has been occupied by protestors angry that Vodafone enjoyed a tax settlement signed in July just before George Osborne’s endorsement of Vodafone in India, and which appeared to waive at least £1 billion of tax owing by the company (according to its own estimate) and as much as £4.8 billion in the usually reliable estimate of Private Eye.

I have written about this story, here, and in the Guardian. And in a sense there is nothing to say to what I said then:

I do have sorry news for those who want Vodafone to pay up: if HMRC have really settled the case then the matter is done and dusted, and the opportunity to charge will have gone.

No protest will change that. But I also added:

This does not change the fact that this affair leaves a sour taste in the mouth, not least because days after it was announced, George Osborne was promoting Vodafone in India – a visit that must have been agreed before the tax announcement was made on 23 July. Of course, the coincidental timing may just be fortuitous and no one is suggesting Vodafone has done anything wrong, but the impression given is that HMRC rushed a deal through before the Indian visit.

These timings do look odd, in the extreme. And I have no doubt at all No 11 was behind them. And a “sour taste” is the least they leave behind.

Clearly it’s done more for some. I have no idea who: I have no idea who organised this protest or who is on it. But it does raise serious issues.

First note Sky News’ report that:

An article in the Private Eye estimated the taxpayers’ bill for the CFC liabilities and other arrangements "was likely to be at least £6bn" in lost tax.

According to the magazine, a former official familiar with the case described it as an "unbelievable cave-in" by HMRC.

However, HMRC said this claim was untrue, adding: "We cannot comment on the detail of the settlement but we can confirm that it was reached by HMRC following a rigorous examination of the facts and an intensive process of negotiation that tested the arguments of both parties.

"As a result it was agreed that Vodafone’s liability was £1.25bn and at no point was a liability greater than that established.

"There is no question of Vodafone having an outstanding tax liability of £6bn. That number is an urban myth."

With the very greatest of respect to HMRC might I suggest they stop digging? It’s the best advice to someone in a hole. Vodafone expected a bigger liability in this case for good reason, and that was that the UK had a good case. That HMRC caved in is, as I think the Private Eye commentator (who I know well – I sent Sky their way) said a matter that is beyond dispute. (my emphasis)

There is clear, unambiguous and certain bias of treatment in my opinion in this case. The ConDems wanted to send out a message to business. To woo one in particular. That’s not to blame Vodafone of anything. It is to accuse No 11 of political manipulation of a tax dispute to suit its purpose evidenced in India days later.

Are people right to protest? So long as they do so peaceably and without causing damage then my answer is yes, that is their right. This is a democracy. The right of peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy. Vodafone can claim to be innocent victim here – but it set out to tax avoid and all claims to the contrary by it would be unsustainable. They say it is their intention to do so. And they must be aware of the social consequences of that – which are dramatic.

I therefore support protest on the conditions I note.

And I hope there will be more protests on many issues. When the ConDems are seeking to tear the heart out of our society; when they are planning to impose on many a cost to benefit a few whom already enjoy all the privileges society can offer, and when people will suffer and even die as a result then I think peaceful protest is not just our right, but our duty.

And I stress – that’s because any democracy should afford us that right and encourage its exercise. And any government faced with such protest should not spread deliberate misinformation in the face of it – as H M Revenue & Customs appears to be doing in this case.
- See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/27/vodafone-and-tax-protests/#sthash.X415PXhi.dpuf

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I was lucky that I joined the Post Office and got the benefits that went with it, a good compulsory pension scheme and a decent wage, so does that make me some sort of social destroyer stealing from the downtrodden workers ?

I'm interested in why you consider yourself lucky? Is it that you are comparing your job to people today who don't have the option to undertake such a role with a good salary and eventual pension? The rights that were fought for - and you quite rightly benefited from - have been steadily eroded...and yes, I'm going to say it...since Thatcher and no, you're not some sort of social destroyer at all, so I don't know where you have got that from! Sadly, as a society we have been encourage to believe that decent salaries/pensions etc are perks and not rights, and many people have fallen for it.
(Oh and don't say that we can't afford it...we can!)i

 

[ExRes]

I'm interested in why you consider yourself lucky? Is it that you are comparing your job to people today who don't have the option to undertake such a role with a good salary and eventual pension? The rights that were fought for - and you quite rightly benefited from - have been steadily eroded...and yes, I'm going to say it...since Thatcher and no, you're not some sort of social destroyer at all, so I don't know where you have got that from! Sadly, as a society we have been encourage to believe that decent salaries/pensions etc are perks and not rights, and many people have fallen for it.
(Oh and don't say that we can't afford it...we can!)i

I consider myself lucky because I was fortunate enough to join the pension scheme before it was eroded, in the early 90s if I remember correctly, those joining at that stage had far inferior terms to mine, those benefits and their transfer to the Railway scheme mean that I should have a reasonable retirement and not be a drag on the current working generation, I think those things make it quite clear why I consider I have the advantage over those with more 'modern' pension benefits

I'm also quite happy to accept the benefits of my pension, I worked a lot of hours through some pretty awful round the clock shifts, while I'm certain I'm lucky I also know how hard I worked for them

 

[Oswyntail]

No, avoided after negotiating with HMRC:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2010/10/27/vodafone-and-tax-protests/

Does this chap actually have access to teh details of what was going on? By his own admission, no. Is this a strictly non-partisan account? Obviously not. Yet another zealot shouting "corruption".

 

[EM2]

Does this chap actually have access to teh details of what was going on? By his own admission, no. Is this a strictly non-partisan account? Obviously not. Yet another zealot shouting "corruption".

I think he knows what he's talking about:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/

According to International Tax Review Richard was the 7th most influential person in global tax in 2013.

In 2014 The Saturday Newspaper in Australia said:

Richard Murphy [is] the British economist and chartered accountant who has probably done more than any other individual to bring to light the tax avoidance schemes of multinational companies

In particular he created the entirely new accounting concept of Country-by-Country reporting that is now being considered for adoption by the European Union, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Accounting Standards Board and others. Country-by-Country reporting requires a multinational company to publish a proper loss account each and every jurisdiction in which it trades, without exception, and is seen as as a mechanism for holding multinational corporations to account for their activities in developing countries, the extractive industries and tax havens. It will also assist the monitoring of corporate transfer mispricing and is believed to cost developing countries tens and maybe hundreds of billions of dollars a year as well as corporate tax and governance risk in multinational corporations.

In December 2012 Economia magazine, published for the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, named Richard as the most influential chartered accountant in the UK’s social media. He repeated this feat in 2013, being named number 7 overall and number one chartered accountant in the ICAEW’s Economia magazine list of go-to sources for financial news in the world of social media.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

I consider myself lucky because I was fortunate enough to join the pension scheme before it was eroded, in the early 90s if I remember correctly, those joining at that stage had far inferior terms to mine, those benefits and their transfer to the Railway scheme mean that I should have a reasonable retirement and not be a drag on the current working generation, I think those things make it quite clear why I consider I have the advantage over those with more 'modern' pension benefits

I'm also quite happy to accept the benefits of my pension, I worked a lot of hours through some pretty awful round the clock shifts, while I'm certain I'm lucky I also know how hard I worked for them

Yes, that's fair enough, anyone who managed to hang onto or join a decent pension scheme before they were chopped can consider themselves fortunate in that sense! I remember many people in the NHS were suckered into opting out of the NHS Pension scheme in the 1980's/90's with all kinds of promises...goodness me, they regret it now!

 

[Butts]

If someone from the UK decided to chance their arm in Poland what by way of benefits and a minimum wage could they expect to receive ?

 

[muz379]

about 20% of polish government spending is on welfare . not that this indicates eligibility or generosity of their benefits .

and their minimum wage comprises of about €420 a month or about 1730pln , tbh after staying there for about 4 nights last year I reckon 1730pln is a fair amount . That being said I dont actually fully know the housing costs .

 

[St Rollox]

If someone from the UK decided to chance their arm in Poland what by way of benefits and a minimum wage could they expect to receive ?

Wonder if they have food banks in Poland.

 

[Butts]

Wonder if they have food banks in Poland.

Well I've never seen one in the UK but I'm sure they exist. My enquiry was merely intended to see a comparison of what claimants would be eligible for in a fellow EU Country.

 

[EM2]

Well I've never seen one in the UK but I'm sure they exist. My enquiry was merely intended to see a comparison of what claimants would be eligible for in a fellow EU Country.

You may be surprised just how many exist here.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats (This is an infographic, so difficult to copy to the forum).
The most damning statistic in my eyes is the massive increase in referrals to food banks, from 25,899 in 2008-09 to 913,138 in 2013-14 and this is the just the food banks operated by this charity, let alone others.

 

[Butts]

You may be surprised just how many exist here.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats (This is an infographic, so difficult to copy to the forum).
The most damning statistic in my eyes is the massive increase in referrals to food banks, from 25,899 in 2008-09 to 913,138 in 2013-14 and this is the just the food banks operated by this charity, let alone others.

As I understand it there use is restricted to referrals from appropriate bodies, and only on an occasional basis.

 

[21C101]

You may be surprised just how many exist here.
http://www.trusselltrust.org/stats (This is an infographic, so difficult to copy to the forum).
The most damning statistic in my eyes is the massive increase in referrals to food banks, from 25,899 in 2008-09 to 913,138 in 2013-14 and this is the just the food banks operated by this charity, let alone others.

A lot of that is due to debt. People who believed in the magic money tree living it up on their credit cards and MEWing (mortgage equity withdrawal).

Now those days are over......

 

[EM2]

A lot of that is due to debt. People who believed in the magic money tree living it up on their credit cards and MEWing (mortgage equity withdrawal).

Now those days are over......

Did you actually look at the link, that shows that less than 8% of the referrals are because of debt?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As I understand it there use is restricted to referrals from appropriate bodies, and only on an occasional basis.

Indeed, that is the case. And there's still nearly a million referrals, even with those criteria. Doesn't that tell you that something has gone drastically wrong with the Government's welfare reforms when 30% of those referrals are for delays in benefits being paid, and another 17% are due to benefit changes?
This is a rich, civilised country and it disgusts me that families are having to rely on charity just to feed themselves.
That's not living, that's barely existing.

 

[Butts]

Did you actually look at the link, that shows that less than 8% of the referrals are because of debt?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Indeed, that is the case. And there's still nearly a million referrals, even with those criteria. Doesn't that tell you that something has gone drastically wrong with the Government's welfare reforms when 30% of those referrals are for delays in benefits being paid, and another 17% are due to benefit changes?
This is a rich, civilised country and it disgusts me that families are having to rely on charity just to feed themselves.
That's not living, that's barely existing.

Yes I would agree, however despite the vast publicity attributed to these services I would argue the vast majority of people are indifferent to the plight of the people using them. The same could be said with regard to the payment of a Living Wage - see the thread I created on that.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think he knows what he's talking about:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/richard-murphy/

Perhaps - but he is hardly disinterested. He is a knowledgeable man with an axe to grind. Where can we find unbiased opinion these days?

 

[ainsworth74]

Did you actually look at the link, that shows that less than 8% of the referrals are because of debt?

I can't recall the last referral we made solely because of debt. Debt might be part of the persons issue but most of the time the reason we might refer someone to a Foodbank will be because of issues with their DWP benefits (sanctions, disqualification or just plain mal-administration) meaning they have no money (which is where the debt might become part of the issue but it isn't the cause of the problem).

 

[BlythPower]

Aristocracy and gentry? Yes they are wealthy, yes they had a good education because of it, but this does not mean they are the evil, corrupt caricatures we see portrayed. After all, the same could be said of Harriet Harman, or Margaret Hodge (reputedly the richest MP at present).

No, that would be Richard Benyon.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Margaret Hodge (reputedly the richest MP at present).

The richest MP at present is Richard Benyon, a Conservative MP and great grandson of Lord Salisbury with a £110m inheritance.

Why do I know that?

Because he's the man who lectures us all on "welfare scrounging" whilst earning £120k a year in housing benefit.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I can't recall the last referral we made solely because of debt. Debt might be part of the persons issue but most of the time the reason we might refer someone to a Foodbank will be because of issues with their DWP benefits (sanctions, disqualification or just plain mal-administration) meaning they have no money (which is where the debt might become part of the issue but it isn't the cause of the problem).

This.

It's easy for the Tories to lecture about indebtedness causing the problems, but the truth is that it isn't. It's useful for them to claim it is indebtedness, because then they can blame the poor person for being poor, which is a key part of Conservative ideology.

People who are heavily indebted, but have an income, have plenty of options to secure themselves without the need for food banks. If your debts and assets are low you can do a Debt Relief Order, if your debts and assets are higher you can do an IVA. Both options allow you to keep enough of your money to live on, with only surplus income going towards debt repayments.

Between StepChange and Grant Thornton, debts are not a problem- if you have an income.

The people going to food banks are people who've seen their benefits stopped- often for no good reason- or who simply don't have enough income to meet their essential expenditure. Between the Bedroom Tax and the abolition of Council Tax Benefit this affects too many people to mention.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...od--a-week-before-the-byelection-9858763.html

There is still a week to go before the Rochester and Strood by-election, but bookmakers Coral have already started paying out on people’s bets for a Ukip win.

Coral must be pretty confident of a UKIP win, assuming they do win Cameron will be deep in trouble and may well face a leadership challenge as only 46 mp's are needed to force one.

 

[TheJRB]

The result in Rochester and Strood (Conservative victory in first and only election to date in 2010) could be very different to what would have been under the old boundary of Medway (Conservative 1983-97, Labour 1997-2010) and before that Rochester and Chatham (which was very much a marginal seat). The boundary change seems to particularly not favour Labour although it's seemingly not doing much for the Conservatives either now.

 

[St Rollox]

Nobody is turned away from the local food bank in my area.
People would starve to death waiting on a phone call never mind a letter from places like the job center.
Even having a job doesn't stop poverty.

 

[Antman]

Nobody is turned away from the local food bank in my area.
People would starve to death waiting on a phone call never mind a letter from places like the job center.
Even having a job doesn't stop poverty.

Exactly, there are people in full time work who are struggling to survive and thank goodness there are food banks or people would have to steal or starve. The cost of renting property has gone through the roof due to the ever increasing demand and many such properties are riddled with damp, landlords know somebody will take it so why bother doing anything about it? For many people it's a choice of paying way over the odds for substandard accommodation or sleep on the streets. The south east is grossly overpopulated and as I said before UKIP are the only ones doing something about it.

 

[GatwickDepress]

I noted more food donation bins than in previous years at Tesco the other day.

 

[EM2]

The cost of renting property has gone through the roof due to the ever increasing demand...

And it's in no way the fault of councils and Governments failing to build enough affordable social housing?

 

[Antman]

And it's in no way the fault of councils and Governments failing to build enough affordable social housing?

There are undoubtedly other contributory factors but the overwhelming problem is that supply doesn't come anywhere near meeting demand.